ISO 59000 Series: Measuring Circularity

Circularity has suffered from a vocabulary problem for a decade. Two organisations describing themselves as circular can mean entirely different things, and comparing their claims has been closer to interpretation than to measurement.

The ISO 59000 series is the attempt to fix that, and its most useful contribution is the least exciting one: agreed definitions.

What is in the series?

The fourth is the one most directly relevant to passport work, because a product circularity data sheet is close in intent to a passport section: structured, comparable, product-level circularity data intended to travel between organisations.

Why vocabulary matters more than it sounds

Most disagreements about circularity claims are definitional rather than factual. Whether pre-consumer production scrap counts as recycled content, whether energy recovery counts as recovery, and whether a leased product is circular by virtue of the business model are all questions people answer differently in good faith.

A standard that settles the terms removes an entire category of argument, and it does so in a way that survives translation between languages and jurisdictions. That is unglamorous and it is the precondition for measurement meaning anything.

What does ISO 59020 measure?

It specifies a method rather than a single number. The framework covers defining the system under assessment, selecting indicators, collecting data and reporting results, at product, organisational and inter-organisational levels.

That multi-level structure matters because circularity is frequently a property of a system rather than of a product. A product designed for reuse in a market with no collection is not achieving circularity, and a product-level indicator alone would not reveal that.

How does it relate to the Material Circularity Indicator?

The Material Circularity Indicator is one specific metric with a defined formula. ISO 59020 is a framework within which such indicators can be selected and applied consistently.

They are complementary rather than competing, and the choice of which indicator to report remains yours. The comparison is set out in the Material Circularity Indicator, including what it captures and what it misses.

Does ISO 59000 create a compliance obligation?

No. These are voluntary international standards providing guidance and method. They are not harmonised European standards and carry no presumption of conformity with any EU regulation.

That is a genuine distinction from the CEN-CENELEC work on the passport, which is explicitly linked to Regulation (EU) 2024/1781. ISO 59000 helps you measure consistently; it does not discharge a legal duty.

Where does it help a passport programme?

• Defining terms once, so recycled content means the same thing across your product lines.
• Choosing indicators deliberately rather than adopting whichever a customer asks for first.
• Documenting the method behind a reported figure, which is what makes it defensible.
• Communicating with international partners who are not working to EU instruments.

The fourth is underrated. A supplier outside the EU has no obligation under the ESPR and may have never heard of it, but is far more likely to recognise an ISO reference, which makes it a more effective way to specify what you are asking for.

What is a product circularity data sheet?

ISO 59040 defines a structured way to communicate circularity information about a product between organisations. It is the part of the series closest in spirit to a passport, and it addresses the same underlying problem: circularity data exists but does not travel in a comparable form.

The distinction from a passport is scope and force. A data sheet is a voluntary communication format between commercial parties; a passport is a regulated artefact resolvable by parties with no commercial relationship to you, including authorities and recyclers.

In practice the two should carry compatible content. A manufacturer producing a data sheet for a customer and a passport for a regulator is describing the same product, and holding the underlying facts once and projecting them into both is the only sensible arrangement.

What are its limits?

It does not tell you what good looks like. A method for computing an indicator does not say whether the resulting number is adequate, and the series deliberately avoids setting thresholds because they would be sector-specific and would date quickly.

It also does not solve data availability. Measuring circularity consistently requires knowing material composition, recycled content and end-of-life routes, which is the same supplier evidence problem every other obligation runs into.